Talking Footy

AFL warns of a $20m loss in 2016

Date November 30, 2015 17 reading now


Caroline Wilson

Chief Football Writer for The Age

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan.

The AFL has forecast a loss of almost $20 million for next year as the financial woes of the majority of its clubs continues to haunt the competition.

League chief Gillon McLachlan revealed the gloomy outlook for 2016 to club bosses on the eve of last week's national draft, signifying a financial year-to-year downward turnaround estimated at $22 million.

The revelation came as the AFL enters its final year of the current broadcast rights agreement and the second year of the wildly unpopular two-year equalisation measures which look certain to be scrapped and restructured from 2017.

And it has coincided with repeated warnings from the game's new financial controller Ray Gunston that the AFL clubs are overspending and must rein in their budgets next season. The current debt being carried by the clubs is estimated at an alarming $60 million and the $20 million loss has been blamed largely on the clubs' financial woes.

With the AFL being pressured to cover the entirety of club total player payments in the next six-year media rights cycle, the league is looking to next year unveil a totally restructured financial model.

McLachlan refused to comment on the projected loss, expected to be finalised before Christmas, on Monday.

Last year only one-third of the 18 clubs achieved profits without substantial AFL assistance with Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn and Richmond the only Victorian clubs to do so along with the two West Australian teams. Essendon this year recorded a $1.3 million loss with Geelong expected to announce a loss of about $1.2 million.

Another one-time league powerhouse Carlton now carries a multi-million dollar debt and has been the cause of some concern to the AFL Commission. Even with assistance the Blues announced a $900,000 loss this year.

While the next broadcast agreement, worth $2.5 billion over six year from 2017 -effectively a 67 percent annual increase on the current deal — should prove a major correction for the competition the issue of closing the gap between the rich and poor clubs continues to dominate debate.

This year equalisation taxes achieved less than $4 million for the struggling clubs with the wealthier Hawthorn, Collingwood and West Coast still determined to seek extra and previously unsourced revenues to aid the poorer clubs without being taxed themselves. The middle-ranked clubs — including notably the loss-making Cats — remain perplexed at paying over six-figure sums to the equalisation pool.

The AFL is expected to achieve marginally ahead of its budgeted $2.5 million profit in 2015 but the ongoing financial headaches provided by its most recent expansion clubs the GWS and the Gold Coast continue to dog the competition with both clubs pushing for greater assistance as they struggle to make an impact on and off the field. In 2015 the league was forced to provide and extra $3.25 million to Greater Western Sydney.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/AFL/AFL-warns- ... z3t4LWP6s0
Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

But but but but but i keep hearing this is not A problem in fumbleball .

Damn. If only we could almost double our media revenue. That would provide plenty of money for over spending clubs......

where is Dumbo for this one..
Most AFL clubs making losses lol

Meh the AFL clubs most are building state of the art training venues as other businesses expansions that are reported in those losses

The nrlol.clubs the leagues club and other business ventures are not due to different ownership structures

Do we need to go over the two different codes ability to make money through football related revenues and sponsorship basement dwellers?

leagueiscrap wrote:

Meh the AFL clubs most are building state of the art training venues as other businesses expansions that are reported in those losses

The nrlol.clubs the leagues club and other business ventures are not due to different ownership structures

Do we need to go over the two different codes ability to make money through football related revenues and sponsorship basement dwellers?

No , we don't need to. We've all seen the profits made by the respective codes in the past couple of years :_<>

pussycat wrote:

leagueiscrap wrote:

Meh the AFL clubs most are building state of the art training venues as other businesses expansions that are reported in those losses

The nrlol.clubs the leagues club and other business ventures are not due to different ownership structures

Do we need to go over the two different codes ability to make money through football related revenues and sponsorship basement dwellers?

No , we don't need to. We've all seen the profits made by the respective codes in the past couple of years :_<>

and the revenue...

Lol seriously .
It doesn't matter how much revenue you generate if you are running at loss

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol seriously .
It doesn't matter how much revenue you generate if you are running at loss

a loss isnt ideal but when you forecast for a certain budget and costs grow unexpectedly its hardly unusual, especially for a non-profit organisation. The AFL are swimming in revenue and could easily cut spending. Not that theyll need to when their TV revenue will double in the near future

Lol
2 yrs running they have lost $$$$
You think things will change because more money comes in .
The more that $$$$$ that come in the greedier the clubs get .

pussycat wrote:

leagueiscrap wrote:

Meh the AFL clubs most are building state of the art training venues as other businesses expansions that are reported in those losses

The nrlol.clubs the leagues club and other business ventures are not due to different ownership structures

Do we need to go over the two different codes ability to make money through football related revenues and sponsorship basement dwellers?

No , we don't need to. We've all seen the profits made by the respective codes in the past couple of years :_<>

and the revenue
the leagues AFL and NRLOL are set up as not for profit organisations so are the AFL clubs as well as most of the NRLOL clubs
so that means no share holders or owners to answer to.
the AFL has the cash reserves, to why scrimp and save like the NRLOL does, so you basement dwellers can beat off over it.
the AFL invests money back in to the game and grass roots and the NRLOL does not
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl ... d78b075235
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslo ... 7602106872
proof investment is paying off
the AFL is paying off etihad something that will be a billion dollar asset.

if you put money in to a business it will grow

then you have the NRLOL, a pack of old dinosaurs Shitney numptys :_<>

any way wasnt the NRL caught lying about its profit last year

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol
2 yrs running they have lost $$$$
You think things will change because more money comes in .
The more that $$$$$ that come in the greedier the clubs get .

Lying as well now, let's look at your list, your a hypocrite who doesn't hold him self to his own standards, you deflect and change topic which you have admitted to, and you slink away when the going gets tough. Dear me

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol seriously .
It doesn't matter how much revenue you generate if you are running at loss

Absolutely not true, come on slinky please deal in the facts

The_Wookie wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

But but but but but i keep hearing this is not A problem in fumbleball .

Its not. Its a sustainable loss. But hey wank yourself off over it if you must.

'A Sustainable loss'. pff It's the beginning of the end! God only nows whats going to be left in the future fund this time. >

Xman wrote:

AFLcrap1 wrote:

Lol seriously .
It doesn't matter how much revenue you generate if you are running at loss

a loss isnt ideal but when you forecast for a certain budget and costs grow unexpectedly its hardly unusual, especially for a non-profit organisation. The AFL are swimming in revenue and could easily cut spending. Not that theyll need to when their TV revenue will double in the near future

A Loss Is A loss!.

TV revenue - TV revenue, but, but, but. exactly the same thing would have been said back in 2011 when they got there $1.2B deal